Halls of Fame Discussion

[selmaborntidefan]

This past week, the Baseball Hall of Fame selected two players for induction, Dave Parker and the late Dick Allen.

For starters, neither is a BAD selection, okay? Baseball statistician Bill James - who long opposed Allen's induction - predicted in 1994 he'd probably get in eventually because everything gets forgotten and all that remains are the statistics - and Allen has some decent stats. But it's no accident Allen never went to a World Series and his only pennant came in his final full season (1976) as a backup with Philly - because he was a perpetually young Gary Sheffield, the kind of guy who could help break up a team with dissension (per pretty much everyone involved when Allen was actually playing). Again - a DEFENSIBLE choice in that Allen is basically the Bryce Harper of his day, so long as you overlook the fact he was also a team cancer, which is why most of his teams broke out into his friends vs his enemies. (The Royals GM in 1974 said he wouldn't take Allen - 30 years old and two years removed as an MVP - if you paid him $10K to take him. Most folks wouldn't say that about, say, Barry Bonds).

Parker - before his cocaine habit pushed him into a few down years - was a rightfielder with a phenomenal arm (go look up his throws in the 1979 ASG on You Tube) who won a couple of batting titles and then got a bit overweight once he got his big million dollar contract. Parker IN HIS PEAK YEARS and prime was one of the best all-around players in baseball. He's a Tony Perez type (as far as his PLAYING and STATS) or Billy Williams.

I'm a small Hall guy, so I wouldn't vote for these guys, but these are not inductions that are going to make the HOF look ridiculous, either, though Ken Boyer should have been in the Hall long ago (he died at 51 years old - 42 years ago). Boyer is one of the ten best third basemen ever, but his hitting stats are reduced because he played in pitcher's haven Busch Stadium AND in the worst hitting era since prior to 1920, the 1960s, when the strike zone was huge.

But that leads to.....

 

[selmaborntidefan]

How did Dave Parker get chosen ahead of Dale Murphy?

Now THIS is where I go crazy trying to figure out the logic.

1) SOME of Parker's stats are better than Murphy's.

Parker played about 300 more games than Murphy, went to the plate about 1100 more times, and had about 600 more hits. His career batting average is about 25 points higher (Murph's is pretty low for a HOFer)

But having said that, look a little closer and Murphy has - despite 1100 fewer PAs:
- 7 more steals
- a substantially better stealing pct (.703 vs .576)
- a mind-boggling better SECONDARY AVERAGE (.339 vs .258) - see below
- 300 more walks in those 1100 fewer PAs
- a slugging pct only 2 points below Parker
- a higher OPS (.815 to .810)
- only 11 fewer intentional walks
- won 4 Silver Slugger awards to Parker's 3

And at this point, we're only talking about HITTING....

2) Murphy played a more critical outfield position - and MUCH better than Parker.

Parker played 1792 games in right field - and led the league in errors seven times, never winning a Gold Glove.

Murphy played 1041 games in center AND ANOTHER 749 in right. He led the league in errors ONCE and won FIVE GOLD GLOVES as the best CF in the NL.

Parker won a deserved MVP.
Murphy won two.

So Murphy is at least the equal of Parker as a hitter, a BETTER base stealer and runner, and a MUCH BETTER fielder, although admittedly we're not talking infield here.

3) Parker played for teams FAR BETTER than Murphy ever was lucky enough to play.

This is not even a debatable subject. After his first half-season in the big leagues (1973), Parker's Pirates finished first or second SIX STRAIGHT YEARS. In Murphy's first two full seasons, the Braves lost 187 games and never left last place. His team's assent coincides with Pittsburgh's descent, although the 1982 Braves - who won the pennant - only won 5 games more than the Pirates, who finished 3rd in the East. In 1983, Parker's last year with Pittsburgh, the Braves still only won 4 games more than the Pirates - and both finished in second. The point is that even when Murphy's Braves were at their one peak during his career, PARKER PLAYED FOR A TEAM EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS MURPHY'S. In those 2 years, in fact, the Pirates were 14-12 against the Braves.

Literally the ONLY year in their almost parallel careers when Murphy played for a better team than Parker was 1984, when the Braves went 13-5 against the Reds and won ten total more games.

Then, Pete Rose came to manage the Reds - and Parker played for three straight second-place teams while Murphy was stuck on the Second Laughingstock Era of the Braves. And then after 1987, Parker gets traded to the Oakland Athletics for Jose Rijo (who, ironically, beats Oakland in the 1990 WS and wins the MVP), and spends the next two years there as a DH.

He finishes out his career in 1991 in Milwaukee and then California and Toronto, extending his career as a DH.

Imagine if the Braves had traded Murphy to Oakland for Jose Rijo in 1987 what Dale's numbers would look like with Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco protecting him in the lineup. Or if he didn't have to play outfield.

4) There is STILL a fixation on batting averages that is killing Murph's HOF chances.

Even though we knew 30 years ago that SECONDARY AVERAGE is more than twice as important as BATTING AVERAGE as an indicator of a player's value, voters still get locked in on "well, Parker hit .290 for his career and Murphy, despite playing in a hitter's park, only hit .265."

But Murphy was BY FAR the better player and more valuable to his team.

I think what's going on now goes like this:

"Well, but Murphy played in the easiest home run park in the league and still had a low batting average. His home runs total is only high because he had a short fence and high altitude park" (this is pre-Denver).

I think that's the internal argument.

But of his 378 Atlanta home runs, Murphy hit 206 at home and 172 on the road, hardly any kind of substantial home field advantage. Parker hit 170 and 169, but note he hit 15 homers in the supposedly easier park in Atlanta; Murphy hit 11 in the supposedly more difficult park in Pittsburgh and 23 more in Cincinnati, suggesting to me that Murphy was a better slugger on the road than was Parker.

I reiterate that Dave Parker is a defensible, reasonable, and NOT BAD selection for the Hall.

I just don't understand why Dale Murphy has had to stand there and watch Jim Rice and Dave Parker walk through the hallowed doors of the Hall of Fame while he has to buy a ticket.

 

[Padreruf]

How did Dave Parker get chosen ahead of Dale Murphy?

Now THIS is where I go crazy trying to figure out the logic.

1) SOME of Parker's stats are better than Murphy's.

Parker played about 300 more games than Murphy, went to the plate about 1100 more times, and had about 600 more hits. His career batting average is about 25 points higher (Murph's is pretty low for a HOFer)

But having said that, look a little closer and Murphy has - despite 1100 fewer PAs:
- 7 more steals
- a substantially better stealing pct (.703 vs .576)
- a mind-boggling better SECONDARY AVERAGE (.339 vs .258) - see below
- 300 more walks in those 1100 fewer PAs
- a slugging pct only 2 points below Parker
- a higher OPS (.815 to .810)
- only 11 fewer intentional walks
- won 4 Silver Slugger awards to Parker's 3

And at this point, we're only talking about HITTING....

2) Murphy played a more critical outfield position - and MUCH better than Parker.

Parker played 1792 games in right field - and led the league in errors seven times, never winning a Gold Glove.

Murphy played 1041 games in center AND ANOTHER 749 in right. He led the league in errors ONCE and won FIVE GOLD GLOVES as the best CF in the NL.

Parker won a deserved MVP.
Murphy won two.

So Murphy is at least the equal of Parker as a hitter, a BETTER base stealer and runner, and a MUCH BETTER fielder, although admittedly we're not talking infield here.

3) Parker played for teams FAR BETTER than Murphy ever was lucky enough to play.

This is not even a debatable subject. After his first half-season in the big leagues (1973), Parker's Pirates finished first or second SIX STRAIGHT YEARS. In Murphy's first two full seasons, the Braves lost 187 games and never left last place. His team's assent coincides with Pittsburgh's descent, although the 1982 Braves - who won the pennant - only won 5 games more than the Pirates, who finished 3rd in the East. In 1983, Parker's last year with Pittsburgh, the Braves still only won 4 games more than the Pirates - and both finished in second. The point is that even when Murphy's Braves were at their one peak during his career, PARKER PLAYED FOR A TEAM EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS MURPHY'S. In those 2 years, in fact, the Pirates were 14-12 against the Braves.

Literally the ONLY year in their almost parallel careers when Murphy played for a better team than Parker was 1984, when the Braves went 13-5 against the Reds and won ten total more games.

Then, Pete Rose came to manage the Reds - and Parker played for three straight second-place teams while Murphy was stuck on the Second Laughingstock Era of the Braves. And then after 1987, Parker gets traded to the Oakland Athletics for Jose Rijo (who, ironically, beats Oakland in the 1990 WS and wins the MVP), and spends the next two years there as a DH.

He finishes out his career in 1991 in Milwaukee and then California and Toronto, extending his career as a DH.

Imagine if the Braves had traded Murphy to Oakland for Jose Rijo in 1987 what Dale's numbers would look like with Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco protecting him in the lineup. Or if he didn't have to play outfield.

4) There is STILL a fixation on batting averages that is killing Murph's HOF chances.

Even though we knew 30 years ago that SECONDARY AVERAGE is more than twice as important as BATTING AVERAGE as an indicator of a player's value, voters still get locked in on "well, Parker hit .290 for his career and Murphy, despite playing in a hitter's park, only hit .265."

But Murphy was BY FAR the better player and more valuable to his team.

I think what's going on now goes like this:

"Well, but Murphy played in the easiest home run park in the league and still had a low batting average. His home runs total is only high because he had a short fence and high altitude park" (this is pre-Denver).

I think that's the internal argument.

But of his 378 Atlanta home runs, Murphy hit 206 at home and 172 on the road, hardly any kind of substantial home field advantage. Parker hit 170 and 169, but note he hit 15 homers in the supposedly easier park in Atlanta; Murphy hit 11 in the supposedly more difficult park in Pittsburgh and 23 more in Cincinnati, suggesting to me that Murphy was a better slugger on the road than was Parker.

I reiterate that Dave Parker is a defensible, reasonable, and NOT BAD selection for the Hall.

I just don't understand why Dale Murphy has had to stand there and watch Jim Rice and Dave Parker walk through the hallowed doors of the Hall of Fame while he has to buy a ticket.

Years ago I had a conversation with Rick Camp, former pitcher for the Braves. I asked him if there was any hitter who just scared him...he said Dave Parker. He would only pitch to Parker on the inside of the plate...did not want him hitting those line drives back through the box. Parker's power and incredible arm gave him the nod I believe.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Years ago I had a conversation with Rick Camp, former pitcher for the Braves. I asked him if there was any hitter who just scared him...he said Dave Parker. He would only pitch to Parker on the inside of the plate...did not want him hitting those line drives back through the box. Parker's power and incredible arm gave him the nod I believe.

Dave Parker was a VERY GOOD player prior to his drug addiction.
And he overcame it and was a GOOD player after it.

You got me curious, so I decided to go look at Camp's career appearances against Parker.

SUMMARY OF PARKER VS CAMP
AB 19
Hits 9
BA .474
2B - 1
3B - 0
HR - 1
K - 2 (Camp struck him out 2 of the first 3 times he faced him - and never again)

Parker put the ball in play somehow 17 of the 19 times he faced Rick Camp.

DETAILS
1977
May 10 (game 1)- struck him out
May 10 (game 2) - Parker singled to left and went to third on an errant pickoff throw by Camp
May 11 - struck him out

1978
June 16 - Parker homered after Camp had picked off Omar Moreno
Sep 20 - Parker singled to right (10th) singled to center (12th) with bases loaded for win

1979
Arm injury, Camp did not appear in majors to face World Series champion Pirates

1980
May 4 - Parker popped to third
Aug 26 - Camp pulled for Larry Bradford when Parker came up with one on in a 2-2 game
Aug 28 - with two outs in the bottom of the 9th, Camp walked two guys (plus a passed ball) and Parker came on as a pinch-hitter with a chance to tie the game - Camp was pulled for Al Hrabosky (who got Parker to fly out to left)
September 5 - Parker singled to left (Camp's first batter) and scored, later singled to center off Camp

1981
May 13 - Parker grounded out to end the inning. The very next batter, Parker injured in his Achilles fielding a ball by Claudell Washington and went on the DL for 15 days

1982
April 27 - Parker grounded out
July 23 - Camp STARTED this game; he got Parker to ground to short to end the 1st and singled to center in the third; Camp was pulled trailing, 3-0, with Parker set to lead off the 6th (and got the loss)

1983
Camp only faced the Pirates for one inning and never faced Parker.

1984
Parker goes to the Cincinnati Reds
Sep 20 - Camp STARTS again. Parker singles in the 1st and 3rd, hits into a fielder's choice grounder in the 5th and grounds into a double play in the 7th, Camp's last batter.

1985
April 16 - Parker flies out
June 13 - Camp pitches a scoreless 9th and is pulled in the 10th with Parker leading off. (The Reds force 7 runs across in the 11th for a blowout win, Parker singling to load the bases off Garber.
June 21 - Camp STARTS. Parker singles and doubles then grounds into a double play. Camp wins.

Sept 19 - Camp comes on in the 9th with the Braves down, 6-4. He faces 7 batters and only retires one and leaves with the bases loaded, the Braves down, having given up three runs with Parker coming up to face Bruce Sutter.

Parker hits a grand slam off Sutter.

Sep 24 - Camp comes on in relief with the bases loaded to face Parker first. He induces a double play.

 

[Padreruf]

Dave Parker was a VERY GOOD player prior to his drug addiction.
And he overcame it and was a GOOD player after it.

You got me curious, so I decided to go look at Camp's career appearances against Parker.

SUMMARY OF PARKER VS CAMP
AB 19
Hits 9
BA .474
2B - 1
3B - 0
HR - 1
K - 2 (Camp struck him out 2 of the first 3 times he faced him - and never again)

Parker put the ball in play somehow 17 of the 19 times he faced Rick Camp.

DETAILS
1977
May 10 (game 1)- struck him out
May 10 (game 2) - Parker singled to left and went to third on an errant pickoff throw by Camp
May 11 - struck him out

1978
June 16 - Parker homered after Camp had picked off Omar Moreno
Sep 20 - Parker singled to right (10th) singled to center (12th) with bases loaded for win

1979
Arm injury, Camp did not appear in majors to face World Series champion Pirates

1980
May 4 - Parker popped to third
Aug 26 - Camp pulled for Larry Bradford when Parker came up with one on in a 2-2 game
Aug 28 - with two outs in the bottom of the 9th, Camp walked two guys (plus a passed ball) and Parker came on as a pinch-hitter with a chance to tie the game - Camp was pulled for Al Hrabosky (who got Parker to fly out to left)
September 5 - Parker singled to left (Camp's first batter) and scored, later singled to center off Camp

1981
May 13 - Parker grounded out to end the inning. The very next batter, Parker injured in his Achilles fielding a ball by Claudell Washington and went on the DL for 15 days

1982
April 27 - Parker grounded out
July 23 - Camp STARTED this game; he got Parker to ground to short to end the 1st and singled to center in the third; Camp was pulled trailing, 3-0, with Parker set to lead off the 6th (and got the loss)

1983
Camp only faced the Pirates for one inning and never faced Parker.

1984
Parker goes to the Cincinnati Reds
Sep 20 - Camp STARTS again. Parker singles in the 1st and 3rd, hits into a fielder's choice grounder in the 5th and grounds into a double play in the 7th, Camp's last batter.

1985
April 16 - Parker flies out
June 13 - Camp pitches a scoreless 9th and is pulled in the 10th with Parker leading off. (The Reds force 7 runs across in the 11th for a blowout win, Parker singling to load the bases off Garber.
June 21 - Camp STARTS. Parker singles and doubles then grounds into a double play. Camp wins.

Sept 19 - Camp comes on in the 9th with the Braves down, 6-4. He faces 7 batters and only retires one and leaves with the bases loaded, the Braves down, having given up three runs with Parker coming up to face Bruce Sutter.

Parker hits a grand slam off Sutter.

Sep 24 - Camp comes on in relief with the bases loaded to face Parker first. He induces a double play.

Wow...that's really good. I'll bet no one else had that success against Camp or he would not have lasted as long as he did. Remember when he hit a home run in extra innings as a pinch hitter?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Wow...that's really good. I'll bet no one else had that success against Camp or he would not have lasted as long as he did. Remember when he hit a home run in extra innings as a pinch hitter?

Well, because of the TIME OF NIGHT, I didn't see it, but I can kinda lay out what happened that day.

That summer I spent 3 weeks at my grandparents in Lanett, which turned out to be the right thing given my Grandfather collapsed from a stroke and we buried him Christmas Eve. We watched a bunch of Braves games together, and they were in the process of sinking into slime. But they got hot when I first arrived there, and then the Mets came to town (we went to the Philly game on 7/12 and Murphy hit a walkoff, though that term wasn't used then).

As I recall it, the two team's aces (Gooden vs Mahler) started after a lengthy rain delay and then there was another rain delay. For the life of me, they could have postponed it. Because of the rain delays - although it was summer so I was staying up to near midnight Eastern - I think I went to bed around the 6th maybe 7th inning before Atlanta rallied.

The next day, my grandfather went to see his neighbors and pick up his paper. He had gone to bed when Sutter, who was starting to do this a lot, blew the save to tie it. Neither one of us could believe it the next day when the whole world seemed to be talking about it - and with some of our affiliates in Atlanta, the lead story was the calls about bombs going off at 4am.

 

[Padreruf]

Well, because of the TIME OF NIGHT, I didn't see it, but I can kinda lay out what happened that day.

That summer I spent 3 weeks at my grandparents in Lanett, which turned out to be the right thing given my Grandfather collapsed from a stroke and we buried him Christmas Eve. We watched a bunch of Braves games together, and they were in the process of sinking into slime. But they got hot when I first arrived there, and then the Mets came to town (we went to the Philly game on 7/12 and Murphy hit a walkoff, though that term wasn't used then).

As I recall it, the two team's aces (Gooden vs Mahler) started after a lengthy rain delay and then there was another rain delay. For the life of me, they could have postponed it. Because of the rain delays - although it was summer so I was staying up to near midnight Eastern - I think I went to bed around the 6th maybe 7th inning before Atlanta rallied.

The next day, my grandfather went to see his neighbors and pick up his paper. He had gone to bed when Sutter, who was starting to do this a lot, blew the save to tie it. Neither one of us could believe it the next day when the whole world seemed to be talking about it - and with some of our affiliates in Atlanta, the lead story was the calls about bombs going off at 4am.

I actually watched that game all the way through...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Now just to be clear - and maybe it's AI or whatever - I swear I read recently that Jim Plunkett was chosen for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, though as I look, it just appears he's a finalist since it hasn't yet been announced.

Jim Plunkett, whose story is inspirational on its own, has no damn business in the Pro Football Hall of Fame except as a visitor, but I suspect he makes it, which will grease the path for another undeserving mediocrity, Eli Manning, to go in in the next few years.

Yes, Plunkett won two Super Bowls, which appears to be his only asset in this thing.

Wanna know what he led the league in?
Interceptions (1974)
Most yards lost on sacks (1972)

His record was 72-72 as a starter.
He was 38-19 as a starter with the Raiders (decent), but he also threw more INTs (81) than TDs (80).

Take his two best seasons, when his team won the Super Bowl. In 1980, he took over as the starter only when Dan Pastorini broke his leg. He was a 51% passer, and the primary reason Oakland made it to the Super Bowl that year was their DEFENSE, which ranked 10th overall in the league but they improved substantially after the first 7 games, too. And Oakland was a better RUNNING team than passing team. YES, you can give Plunkett credit for his Super Bowl MVP...;but in all honesty, you should go look at the stats since Philly had more first downs, kept the ball longer, and lost the game because the Raider defense forced four turnovers, three of them picks by Rod Martin.

In the next two years, Plunkett was injured, there was a strike, and he was 10-6.

In 1983, he missed two games BECAUSE HE WAS BENCHED!!! He got his job back when Marc Wilson went down with an injury, and the Raiders marched on and won the Super Bowl. He played so-so throughout the playoffs, and the Raiders won the Super Bowl because of:
a) Marcus Allen's record-shattering rushing performance
b) the fourth best defense in the NFL in total and rush defense

======================

Again, I don't "hate" Jim Plunkett, I think his story from the top to the bottom to the top was and is inspirational, I just don't see the guy as a HALL OF FAME player on the basis of TWO GAMES.

Most years, he was never even close to leading the league in passing (and never did btw).

 

[saturdaysarebet]

Plunkett never made a Pro Bowl. Thus, he wasn't one of the top QBs in his own conference his entire career. How does that warrant being inducted into the HOF?

Parker was the NL connection for drugs when they came to Pittsburgh. It's one thing to jeopardize your own career, but also the health and other careers of players in the National League should not go without punishment. He got immunity by ratting everyone out. So much for baseball HOF sticking to having a character clause.

 

[Power Eye]

How did Dave Parker get chosen ahead of Dale Murphy?

Now THIS is where I go crazy trying to figure out the logic.

1) SOME of Parker's stats are better than Murphy's.

Parker played about 300 more games than Murphy, went to the plate about 1100 more times, and had about 600 more hits. His career batting average is about 25 points higher (Murph's is pretty low for a HOFer)

But having said that, look a little closer and Murphy has - despite 1100 fewer PAs:
- 7 more steals
- a substantially better stealing pct (.703 vs .576)
- a mind-boggling better SECONDARY AVERAGE (.339 vs .258) - see below
- 300 more walks in those 1100 fewer PAs
- a slugging pct only 2 points below Parker
- a higher OPS (.815 to .810)
- only 11 fewer intentional walks
- won 4 Silver Slugger awards to Parker's 3

And at this point, we're only talking about HITTING....

2) Murphy played a more critical outfield position - and MUCH better than Parker.

Parker played 1792 games in right field - and led the league in errors seven times, never winning a Gold Glove.

Murphy played 1041 games in center AND ANOTHER 749 in right. He led the league in errors ONCE and won FIVE GOLD GLOVES as the best CF in the NL.

Parker won a deserved MVP.
Murphy won two.

So Murphy is at least the equal of Parker as a hitter, a BETTER base stealer and runner, and a MUCH BETTER fielder, although admittedly we're not talking infield here.

3) Parker played for teams FAR BETTER than Murphy ever was lucky enough to play.

This is not even a debatable subject. After his first half-season in the big leagues (1973), Parker's Pirates finished first or second SIX STRAIGHT YEARS. In Murphy's first two full seasons, the Braves lost 187 games and never left last place. His team's assent coincides with Pittsburgh's descent, although the 1982 Braves - who won the pennant - only won 5 games more than the Pirates, who finished 3rd in the East. In 1983, Parker's last year with Pittsburgh, the Braves still only won 4 games more than the Pirates - and both finished in second. The point is that even when Murphy's Braves were at their one peak during his career, PARKER PLAYED FOR A TEAM EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS MURPHY'S. In those 2 years, in fact, the Pirates were 14-12 against the Braves.

Literally the ONLY year in their almost parallel careers when Murphy played for a better team than Parker was 1984, when the Braves went 13-5 against the Reds and won ten total more games.

Then, Pete Rose came to manage the Reds - and Parker played for three straight second-place teams while Murphy was stuck on the Second Laughingstock Era of the Braves. And then after 1987, Parker gets traded to the Oakland Athletics for Jose Rijo (who, ironically, beats Oakland in the 1990 WS and wins the MVP), and spends the next two years there as a DH.

He finishes out his career in 1991 in Milwaukee and then California and Toronto, extending his career as a DH.

Imagine if the Braves had traded Murphy to Oakland for Jose Rijo in 1987 what Dale's numbers would look like with Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco protecting him in the lineup. Or if he didn't have to play outfield.

4) There is STILL a fixation on batting averages that is killing Murph's HOF chances.

Even though we knew 30 years ago that SECONDARY AVERAGE is more than twice as important as BATTING AVERAGE as an indicator of a player's value, voters still get locked in on "well, Parker hit .290 for his career and Murphy, despite playing in a hitter's park, only hit .265."

But Murphy was BY FAR the better player and more valuable to his team.

I think what's going on now goes like this:

"Well, but Murphy played in the easiest home run park in the league and still had a low batting average. His home runs total is only high because he had a short fence and high altitude park" (this is pre-Denver).

I think that's the internal argument.

But of his 378 Atlanta home runs, Murphy hit 206 at home and 172 on the road, hardly any kind of substantial home field advantage. Parker hit 170 and 169, but note he hit 15 homers in the supposedly easier park in Atlanta; Murphy hit 11 in the supposedly more difficult park in Pittsburgh and 23 more in Cincinnati, suggesting to me that Murphy was a better slugger on the road than was Parker.

I reiterate that Dave Parker is a defensible, reasonable, and NOT BAD selection for the Hall.

I just don't understand why Dale Murphy has had to stand there and watch Jim Rice and Dave Parker walk through the hallowed doors of the Hall of Fame while he has to buy a ticket.

I'm an avid Murphy fan. Unless you followed the Braves in the 80's and lived in Atlanta, then I don't think you can comprehend what he meant to the city, on and off the field. Until the Braves began their run in '91, Atlanta sports was in a doldrum. There was Dominique Wilkins, but Murph was the sports hero of Atlanta.

I wish he was in the hall, and I thought he had a chance a few years ago when the veterans committee had him as a finalist. His run from 80-87 was phenomenal, and he was probably the best player in the NL behind Schmidt during that period. Unfortunately, after 87 he fell off quickly. If he had just two more really good years and maybe even just gotten to 400 homeruns, then I think he'd be in. It's interesting though how guys that put up crazy stats in the 90s and did it on steroids get left out, which for the most part I agree with, but we don't reward those players who did everything the right way on the field and off.

I've told myself, if he does ever get in, which I don't think he will, that I would go to Cooperstown for his enshrinement. I would love to take my son to that.